Question mainly for Democrats

[Reluctant Republican]

Is it hypocritical for many of the Democratic candidates to support pulling out of Iraq but support going into Darfur? I think so. I don’t really see how you can oppose and want to get our troops out of harm’s way in Iraq but want to send them to Darfur. And how could Iraq be an illegal military action and Darfur be a legal one? It just seems foolish to want to pull our troops out of one conflict zone and support sending them to another, I believe.

[Beet]

Uh, if sending troops into Darfur meant 3,500+ troops killed and billions of dollars for an endless quagmire that never gets anywhere and never helps anyone, not a single Democrat would support sending troops to Darfur.

Imagine this. A Democratic President takes office, says there is a genocide in Darfur. He says he has all kinds of secret government evidence showing it. Says this proves we must go to send troops to Darfur. Anyone who opposes this action is called unpatriotic and is accused of not supporting the troops. Once we get into Darfur we find out there was never any genocide going on there. While the regime was not a good one by any means, the purported genocide never happened. However the President says we must continue to "stay the course" and pour blood and money into Darfur because now he's staked his Presidency on it and can't admit he's wrong. This goes on for 4 years. Wouldn't you be pissed?

[SPC]

Of course, but you must realize that non-interventionism is an authentically conservative ideology. Notice under which party's banner that the WWI, WWII, Korea, Nam, Bosnia, and Kosovo have happened under. Iraq just happens to be an exception because our Republican president is a "neocon" (definition: "Liberalism under a Republican administration"). Democrats never learn from their mistakes.

[Reluctant Republican]

Uh, if sending troops into Darfur meant 3,500+ troops killed and billions of dollars for an endless quagmire that never gets anywhere and never helps anyone, not a single Democrat would support sending troops to Darfur.

Imagine this. A Democratic President takes office, says there is a genocide in Darfur. He says he has all kinds of secret government evidence showing it. Says this proves we must go to send troops to Darfur. Anyone who opposes this action is called unpatriotic and is accused of not supporting the troops. Once we get into Darfur we find out there was never any genocide going on there. While the regime was not a good one by any means, the purported genocide never happened. However the President says we must continue to "stay the course" and pour blood and money into Darfur because now he's staked his Presidency on it and can't admit he's wrong. This goes on for 4 years. Wouldn't you be pissed?

I get what your saying. But, I don't think we should have our troops in either country. But more to the point. If we pull out of Iraq, there's a great risk that many civilians will be slaughtered. Yet the Democrats don’t seem to care about what will happen to the Iraqis when we leave, but many of them are all gung ho for us to go into Darfur and prevent a genocide from taking place. So, they want our troops out of Iraq which might fall into a genocide when we leave and they want to put them into Darfur to prevent another Genocide. I’m sorry, but it just makes no sense to me. I think we should stop interfering in situations overseas period. What’s the point of pulling out of Iraq if we’re just sending our troops to another area where their presence incites hatred towards America?

I don't think there was a point to go into Iraq, but I don't think there's really a point to go into Darfur either. It sounds harsh, but we're not superman, and if we go around intervening in every area where genocide and human rights violations occur, we'll go bankrupt. I mean, where does it end?

[Eleden]

If there was any military force used against Darfur, I think the United Nations should be involved. 

[poughies]

the question i ask is how many americans are killed in darfur if we go in? If we do what Biden says, then yea its hypocritical.... But if its UN troops then no i don't think....

[SPC]

Uh, if sending troops into Darfur meant 3,500+ troops killed and billions of dollars for an endless quagmire that never gets anywhere and never helps anyone, not a single Democrat would support sending troops to Darfur.

Imagine this. A Democratic President takes office, says there is a genocide in Darfur. He says he has all kinds of secret government evidence showing it. Says this proves we must go to send troops to Darfur. Anyone who opposes this action is called unpatriotic and is accused of not supporting the troops. Once we get into Darfur we find out there was never any genocide going on there. While the regime was not a good one by any means, the purported genocide never happened. However the President says we must continue to "stay the course" and pour blood and money into Darfur because now he's staked his Presidency on it and can't admit he's wrong. This goes on for 4 years. Wouldn't you be pissed?

I get what your saying. But, I don't think we should have our troops in either country. But more to the point. If we pull out of Iraq, there's a great risk that many civilians will be slaughtered. Yet the Democrats don’t seem to care about what will happen to the Iraqis when we leave, but many of them are all gung ho for us to go into Darfur and prevent a genocide from taking place. So, they want our troops out of Iraq which might fall into a genocide when we leave and they want to put them into Darfur to prevent another Genocide. I’m sorry, but it just makes no sense to me. I think we should stop interfering in situations overseas period. What’s the point of pulling out of Iraq if we’re just sending our troops to another area where their presence incites hatred towards America?

I don't think there was a point to go into Iraq, but I don't think there's really a point to go into Darfur either. It sounds harsh, but we're not superman, and if we go around intervening in every area where genocide and human rights violations occur, we'll go bankrupt. I mean, where does it end?

Well, I oppose intervention abroad as well. I'm just saying that the only reason that the parties have switched their traditional positions on intervention abroad with regards to Iraq (with the exception of Dr. Paul), is because that a "neocon" Republican started the War. If it was a Democratic president who started the War, the parties' positions would be back to normal.

[Beet]

Of course, but you must realize that non-interventionism is an authentically conservative ideology. Notice under which party's banner that the WWI, WWII, Korea, Nam, Bosnia, and Kosovo have happened under. Iraq just happens to be an exception because our Republican president is a "neocon" (definition: "Liberalism under a Republican administration"). Democrats never learn from their mistakes.

Neoconservatism is very conservative, although it emphasizes the authoritarian aspect of conservatism over the libertarian aspect.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would only consider supporting sending troops to Darfur under the assumption that our intervention in Darfur would be far more successful than our intervention in Iraq has been, and is likely to be. There is certainly precedent for a successful intervention. During the Kosovo war which Republican heavily opposed, we lost not a single US military life to ground combat (possibly 1 airman was killed, according to the movie Behind Enemy Lines).  It took just 78 days. The result was not to 'incite hatred' towards America but tremendously improve America's influence and prestige in the Balkans. In the year 2000, one year after we humiliated Slobodan Milosevic's government, his own people rose up and overthrew him in a peaceful revolution. But yeah, for ground intervention I think it should be primarily the UN, not the US, although we could contribute to such a force.

[Reluctant Republican]

If there was any military force used against Darfur, I think the United Nations should be involved. 

If it was with the UN, I'd consider supporting intervention. On our own though, I'd have major concerns about it.  Still, I suppose some interventions can be pretty succesful. I don't know why we don't let the African Union handle it though, quite honestily.

In any case, thank you to all who answered. This was not meant as an attack: I was merely curious about the issue at hand.

[7,052,770]

No; completely different situations.  I do support US-led UN Action in Darfur rather than unilateral US action however.

[Eleden]

We should also consider the different religious sects of the nation.  One of the main problems in Iraq is that the Sunni and Shiites hate each other.  Is there any conflict (besides the obvious genocide) that would cause an Iraq like situation?

[Eraserhead]

I'd say it is.

[Verily]

We should also consider the different religious sects of the nation.  One of the main problems in Iraq is that the Sunni and Shiites hate each other.  Is there any conflict (besides the obvious genocide) that would cause an Iraq like situation?

The conflict in Darfur is ethnic, not religious; almost all of the locals are Sunni Muslims. Within Darfur, the majority of the population is "black African", but in most of Sudan, the majority of the population is "Arab-Egyptian".

A big part of the problem in Darfur, however, is the past weakness of the Sudanese government. The people committing genocide were originally radical pan-Arab "nationalists" who rebelled against the Sudanese government. In order to quell the rebellion, the government agreed to turn a blind eye to the genocide, and some factions within the government now support it.

I wouldn't say I know enough about Darfur to know if any intervention, unilateral or multilateral, would be workable in the long-run. However, it is clear to me that the problem with Iraq was not the fact that we invaded (which was ill-considered in the first place but not itself a mistake), but rather being unwilling to leave shortly thereafter, which allowed initial support from the locals for "their liberators" to degenerate into open hostility to "an occupying army".

Were Darfur an open-and-shut case, I think it could be successful, but I think the same of Iraq. Therefore, it is not necessarily hypocritical to say that we should withdraw from Iraq now and invade Darfur. This is the argument many Democrats who initially supported the Iraq War, such as Hillary Clinton, have been trying to make. Unfortunately for them, while Iraq could have been successful if handled properly, the pre-war plans provided to Congress were clearly delusional. Any Senator or Congressman who supported the Iraq invasion either didn't bother to notice this (in which case I am disinclined to trust their judgment) or chose to ignore it in favor of voting for a war which was at the time popular with the public (in which case I definitely don't trust their judgment).

For now, I'm certainly an opponent of unilateral intervention and at least not an advocate of multilateral intervention.

[Gabu]

Holding two positions in itself is never hypocritical; the hypocrisy arises from the reasons why you hold the two positions.  If a person opposes the Iraq war because he doesn't think the US should be the world's policeman but then supports invading Darfur to stop the genocide, then yes, it would be hypocritical.  If a person opposes the Iraq war because he thinks that that particular war is a mess that the US should remove itself from, and if that person did not think that a similar situation would arise if the US went into Darfur, then no, it would not be hypocritical.

[Eleden]

The thing about Iraq and Sudan is that National Order was maintained through a dictatorship.  I'm worried that if the Sudanese government is overthrown, it will turn into chaos much like Iraq.

[True Democrat]

Yes, and that's why I support a further surge to Iraq.

[Verily]

Holding two positions in itself is never hypocritical; the hypocrisy arises from the reasons why you hold the two positions.  If a person opposes the Iraq war because he doesn't think the US should be the world's policeman but then supports invading Darfur to stop the genocide, then yes, it would be hypocritical.  If a person opposes the Iraq war because he thinks that that particular war is a mess that the US should remove itself from, and if that person did not think that a similar situation would arise if the US went into Darfur, then no, it would not be hypocritical.

Thank you for being much more succinct about what I was trying to say.

[Person Man]

Darfur is like Afghanistan as both conflicts unite the world against a common enemy. Iraq creates divisions and enemies. Being that, I would oppose intervention in Darfur if we cannot get backing from the U.N. OR N.A.T.O., seing that the U.N. is polarized and weak.

[CARLHAYDEN]

If there was any military force used against Darfur, I think the United Nations should be involved. 

Don't the people in Darfur have enough problems without sending in the rape squads?

[Person Man]

If there was any military force used against Darfur, I think the United Nations should be involved. 

Don't the people in Darfur have enough problems without sending in the rape squads?

Oh yeah, well you're a penis head.

[CARLHAYDEN]

If there was any military force used against Darfur, I think the United Nations should be involved. 

Don't the people in Darfur have enough problems without sending in the rape squads?

Oh yeah, well you're a penis head.

You really should both educate yourself before posting and knock off the lame insults.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1445537,00.html

[TheWildCard]

Of course, but you must realize that non-interventionism is an authentically conservative ideology. Notice under which party's banner that the WWI, WWII, Korea, Nam, Bosnia, and Kosovo have happened under. Iraq just happens to be an exception because our Republican president is a "neocon" (definition: "Liberalism under a Republican administration"). Democrats never learn from their mistakes.

You forgot the Spanish-American War and the Civil War for the Republicans

[Person Man]

If there was any military force used against Darfur, I think the United Nations should be involved. 

Don't the people in Darfur have enough problems without sending in the rape squads?

Oh yeah, well you're a penis head.

Was it these guys?

[Person Man]

Of course, but you must realize that non-interventionism is an authentically conservative ideology. Notice under which party's banner that the WWI, WWII, Korea, Nam, Bosnia, and Kosovo have happened under. Iraq just happens to be an exception because our Republican president is a "neocon" (definition: "Liberalism under a Republican administration"). Democrats never learn from their mistakes.

You forgot the Spanish-American War and the Civil War for the Republicans

Grenada....
Lebanon....
Iraq Again...
Panama...
Cambodia...

[SPC]

Of course, but you must realize that non-interventionism is an authentically conservative ideology. Notice under which party's banner that the WWI, WWII, Korea, Nam, Bosnia, and Kosovo have happened under. Iraq just happens to be an exception because our Republican president is a "neocon" (definition: "Liberalism under a Republican administration"). Democrats never learn from their mistakes.

You forgot the Spanish-American War and the Civil War for the Republicans

Well, although both of those wars were unjust, it doesn't really support my argument, because back then, the Republicans were the authoritarian party and the Democrats were the libertarian party.